Germany's never-ending reform saga: More posters, fewer decisions

By Irina Ignatiew-Lemke 24-12-2025

Another winter, another round of Germany debating streamer obligations. While the rest of Europe has implemented, the European powerhouse keeps on discussing.

If you ever need proof that the German screen industry has stamina, look no further than our debate over streamer investment obligations. It has outlived three funding cycles, five political moods and more working groups than most coproductions. We’ve had consultations, counter-consultations, position papers, counter-position papers… Now we have a glossy new campaign poster – courtesy of the Produzentenallianz – demanding what the sector has been asking for since, well… several reform cycles ago: a statutory investment obligation with rights retention.

More than 30 industry associations have signed the appeal. The slogan is sharp, the artwork cinematic – and yet, despite all the flair, Germany still doesn’t have what at least 16 other European countries already do: a binding mechanism requiring streaming platforms to reinvest part of their turnover into domestic production. France, Italy, Spain, the Netherlands, Denmark, Poland, Romania, Croatia, Belgium, Switzerland, Greece and Portugal have all implemented such systems. Germany, meanwhile, continues debating terminology while others are already cashing the cheques.

Broken Promises: Germany’s streaming debate seems never-ending (Click to enlarge)

Produktionsallianz

Berlin, act XVII: Another discussion, no decision
To be fair, at least the issue is back on the political stage. The Bundestag discussed the direction of film reform last week – not voting on a law, not defining percentages, but acknowledging that a statutory obligation may have to be part of the broader overhaul. In parliamentary terms, this counts as movement. In industry terms, it is déjà vu with better lighting.

A cross-party motion currently before the Bundestag calls for improved conditions for the film sector and explicitly raises the need for investment obligations as one potential instrument. It’s a signal, not a solution.

Meanwhile, a far more consequential development is happening quietly in the background: more than €120m of next year’s federal film budget is under a sperrvermerk – a freeze – and will only be released once the government resolves the streamer-obligation question. That means the debate isn’t just theoretical. Cashflow for 2026 now depends on it.

The Minister’s pivot: Voluntary commitments, anyone?
In recent hearings, Germany’s federal government commissioner for culture and the media Wolfram Weimer has expressed preference for voluntary self-commitments by streaming services rather than a statutory model. He has emphasised that streamers had agreed to “a very constructive restructuring” and announced plans would be revealed soon. He emphasises legal certainty and flexibility while pointing to a potential “investment impulse” if platforms sign robust agreements.

The industry reaction has been mixed. Some acknowledge the logic – voluntary deals could, in theory, be implemented faster than legislation. But most producers and guilds see a familiar pattern: attractive promises, minimal accountability and no structural guarantee. A voluntary system may unlock the frozen budget, but it does not necessarily create long-term planning security.

This is why the new campaign from the Produzentenallianz, backed by more than 30 creative guilds, is so pointed. Their stance, championed by alliance CEO Michelle Müntefering, is simple: Germany’s industry needs predictable investment, retained rights and transparency – none of which are guaranteed without legislation.

Europe: The part of the class that already finished the assignment
While Germany is still workshopping its terminology, Europe has moved on to implementation. France requires streamers to invest a minimum of 20% of their net French revenue in European works, generating hundreds of millions annually. In France, Disney+, Netflix and Prime Video invested US$981m between 2021-2023 as part of those obligations.

Italy, meanwhile, requires 20% of net revenues invested directly in European works from 2024, with 50% going to Italian productions. The Netherlands, furthermore, launched its system in 2024, while Denmark and Norway have moved decisively toward national models. Germany, by contrast, relies on the FFA levy of between 1.8% and 2.5% – useful but miles away from a functioning investment obligation.

The industry’s position is clear, loud and out of patience. Producers, writers, directors, actors, editors, sound designers, cinematographers, festival organisers, casting directors and animators have aligned around a single point: voluntary agreements are not enough. They do not guarantee investment volumes, do not reliably preserve rights and do not provide the planning certainty needed to develop slates, retain IP or finance international coproductions.

The latest appeal states it plainly: “Only a legally anchored rights-retention and verifiable investment rules can make Germany’s production landscape sustainably fit for the future.” The industry is not asking for a miracle; it is asking for a framework.

Opponents to a mandatory system raise valid concerns. Some streamers warn that obligations could reduce flexibility, distort commissioning strategies or invite legal challenges. Some German post-production and service associations have suggested they could live with strong voluntary commitments if they provide rapid clarity.

Given Germany’s €868.4m box office in 2024 (down 6.5% year-on-year), others argue that the priority should be competitiveness, not regulation. But even critics acknowledge that uncertainty is the industry’s biggest enemy – and voluntary models, by definition, offer no guaranteed stability.

The Christmas Moment – because it always happens in December
And so, as we approach the holiday break, Germany’s investment-obligation drama returns with familiar beats: a new poster, a parliamentary discussion, a frozen funding tranche and no final resolution. Even the timing feels ritualistic – this debate somehow always reaches peak intensity right before Christmas, just when producers are trying to close budgets, finalise slates and have no time to think about pending legislation.

Every year the industry unwraps the same gift: uncertainty, tied with a ribbon of ‘maybe next year.’

Allow me to end with a modest wish for 2026: Germany does not need more posters, more talking points or more voluntary frameworks that inspire headlines but not investment. It needs: a binding investment obligation; rights retention; transparent reporting; and, above all, a timeline that won’t slip into the next decade

Germany is a wonderful place to shoot films and series. It should also be a reliable place to build, finance and own them. Until that changes, our great reform saga will remain exactly what it has been for years: a promising script stuck in development, waiting for someone – anyone – to finally call “action.”